Is it time to replace Electoral College with popular vote? (Page 3/5)
RayOtton NOV 06, 03:18 PM
Hey how about just the opposite?

A true confederation of states.

Do away with the Federal government, except for defense and military treaties. Everyone throws the same % of $ into the pot for mutual protection.

Then let the states figure the rest out for themselves. Education, economy, infrastructure, healthcare, the works.
olejoedad NOV 06, 03:44 PM

quote
Originally posted by RayOtton:

Hey how about just the opposite?

A true confederation of states.

Do away with the Federal government, except for defense and military treaties. Everyone throws the same % of $ into the pot for mutual protection.

Then let the states figure the rest out for themselves. Education, economy, infrastructure, healthcare, the works.



That's a lot closer to the vision of our founding Fathers than the hot mess we have currently.

[This message has been edited by olejoedad (edited 11-06-2016).]

cliffw NOV 06, 05:15 PM

quote
Originally posted by rinselberg:
I am thinking that MAYBE the reasons for having the Electoral College have become moot, because of the ways that the U.S. has changed since the Electoral system was adopted.

Changes:
  • Satellite and cable TV
  • Internet and World Wide Web
  • Cell phones
  • Facebook, Twitter and other social networking venues
  • Global reach of remote video conferencing
  • Automobiles and Interstate Highways
  • Passenger Airlines from coast to coast and everywhere in between
  • More mobile population, more people relocating between cities, suburbs, rural areas and states


?




Are you daft ? Or just stupid ?
I don't know which category I fall into.

Let's talk about this.
The Electoral College was put in place to prevent mob rule.

I agree with your thinking though. The Electoral College is not representing large swaths of America, specifically rural America. Most cities vote dumb, = popular vote. They are the people who need government mothering.

The government didn't build America. The people did.
Formula88 NOV 06, 05:20 PM

quote
Originally posted by cliffw:

Are you daft ? Or just stupid ?



He enjoys recreational trolling. He's said as much in previous posts. Discuss the topic if you like, but don't kid yourself that he was interested in anything other than pushing people's buttons to see how they react.
Khw NOV 06, 05:27 PM
I've thought on this issue many times. We have seen in the recent past (within my lifetime) a President elected by the Electoral College that also did not receive a majority in the popular vote. Most times though, the person who has won the Electoral College also won the popular vote. And by "Most times" I mean since it's inception and implication, which would be since ratification of the Constitution, there has only been 4 elections where the winner did not also win the popular vote. Only 4! times would the election results in our history have been changed if it was done purely on popular vote.

I think the biggest irritation I have over the Electoral College is the ability for the electors in some states to vote against the will of the people in that state. I don't think the electors should be unbound from the people they are placing their vote for.

My second issue I have with it is the total lack of representation many feel because of the "winner take all" most states have. While I don't think the states should be forced to adopt a "split vote" system I do feel many people get screwed by it in many ways. First being the utter lack of incentive to use their vote because their party has not won the state in so many years that they see the likeliness of their vote giving their state to their chosen candidate as unobtainable. My second issue with the winner take all is the lack of political campaign funds many states see because they are seen as "already won" for whichever party. This means that the millions upon millions of dollars spent to campaign is being spent in the largest quantity in the few swing states where the split is close to 50/50. So states like California for example, see a lot less campaigning funds spent there because they don't need to, really, they aren't going to take the state or they aren't going to lose the state. This also means that the issues these states face get a lot less play time and, while campaign promises are not necessarily worth anything, they won't be seeing as much focus on what matters to them as far as these promises go. You see promises to steel workers, automotive workers or coal workers, but just how much of that goes on in California that leaves it's local residents in the desperate state that you might find in Ohio for example? Places where local industries are failing so hard that the people are living in almost if not depression like economies.

The third thing that I feel the "winner takes all" system does is force us into a 2 party system. "If" you had a split Electoral College in your state it would give people an incentive to actually vote 3rd party. I know some may hate this idea but so long as a 3rd party vote is seen as nothing more than a protest, a 3rd party will never become a factor in this country. As a matter of fact, the only place we really see 3rd party candidates winning is where popular vote is the election process. Even if a 3rd party were to somehow gain enough protest votes to take 1 state, that is a far cry from ever taking enough states to win the Presidency. With a split vote, if your state has 10 votes and the results are 50% to the D, 30% to the R and 20% to the I, well the I picked up 2 Electoral votes. At the end of the election, they will actually have a portion of the count which would give people a reason to actually consider a 3rd party as more and more do and that portion of the vote increases until it comes to be an actual challenger to the other 2. This of course assumes that the split vote is truly split and not just split between the top 2 candidates. But, when you consider that registered Independents make up as much about 1/3rd of registered voters the idea that a 3rd party could actually make a good showing isn't outside the realm of possibility.

But, I think the above 3 reasons should be considered by the voters in each state and the actual benefits of splitting their votes explained so they can decide by vote if they want tot do that. So long as it's left in the hands of the, for example mostly Democrat hands of California's legislator or in the mostly Republican hands of South Carolina's legislator, they will want to keep all the states votes going to their guy.

I don't have all the answers but I think states with larger Electoral College votes numbers may benefit from splitting the vote while smaller numbered states may find more power in keeping their votes as one block.

Politics, like so many other things has so many facets that figuring out what the best way is for any given place isn't a simple this or that option. Sometimes it's a bit of this here and a some of that there because each place would benefit more from something different than the other.

/Shrug, just some of my musings I've had on the topic. See now, topics have come up that I actually think I want to contribute in after I just posted in another thread how I've been being more selective about what I actually post on. Figures things I have really thought about would all come up close together, huh?
cliffw NOV 06, 05:28 PM

quote
Originally posted by Formula88:

... don't kid yourself that he was interested in anything other than pushing people's buttons to see how they react.



If you are right, he has a sad life. However, it is my duty to challenge anything that he says that is wrong. Lest someone believe it. I enjoy my job, .
ray b NOV 06, 06:28 PM

quote
Originally posted by Blacktree:

You want to get rid of the electoral college... so voter fraud can directly affect the elections?

NO THANK YOU.



don't worry they will still suppress 100 votes
for every single illegal vote

as they always have
Tony Kania NOV 06, 10:56 PM

quote
Originally posted by ray b:


don't worry they will still suppress 100 votes
for every single illegal vote

as they always have




Speak English you uneducated ****. Make sense. Put words into sentences so that you can be understood. **** man, you have a third grade education.

What? Prove me wrong rayb.
rinselberg NOV 07, 04:44 AM
New product roll-out suspended. Loop back to additional research and development.

[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 11-07-2016).]

rinselberg MAY 28, 09:48 AM
So, about a year and a half after I started this topic, I'm back.

I am prompted by a segment on MSNBC's Hardball, with a guest who represented the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact.

First, from the Washington Post:

quote
Lawmakers in Connecticut have approved legislation that would add the state to the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact, bringing electoral reformers closer to their goal of sidestepping the Electoral College to elect presidents by a nationwide popular vote.

Under the compact, states pledge to allocate all their electoral votes to the winner of the nationwide popular vote in presidential elections. It would not go into effect until it's adopted by states representing at least 270 electoral votes, a majority.

Connecticut's seven electoral votes join the 165 electoral votes of 10 other states plus the District of Columbia, putting the compact fewer than 100 electoral votes away from becoming reality. The last state to join the compact was New York, in 2014.



Next, from The Hill:

quote
Now that the Connecticut Senate has passed, in bipartisan fashion, the National Popular Vote bill, I’d like to address some of the more common myths surrounding the bill that arose during the floor debate — and the likely outcomes of reforming the current state-based system. Some of these myths I have recently published as opinion here at The Hill.

First, this bill is not unconstitutional and it is not an end-run around the Constitution. The state-based, winner-take-all-laws that the National Popular Vote bill replaces were never debated at the Constitutional Convention and never mentioned in “The Federalist Papers.” In fact, a majority of states did not have state-based, winner-take-all laws until the eleventh presidential election, generations after the Founding Fathers were dead. So, if you are defending the current system as “the Founders’ system,” honesty and history demand that you stop doing so.

Second, the idea that the current system is designed to protect small states is just plain silly. It is not. . . .



So, WaPo, followed by The Hill. "The old one-two." Want more? Here are the http links to the full length reports:

A national popular vote just got one step closer to reality
Christoper Ingraham; May 8, 2018.
https://www.washingtonpost....m_term=.04a0f3755f4a

Don’t believe the myths about a national popular vote
Saul Anuzis, for The Hill; May 8, 2018.
http://thehill.com/opinion/...ational-popular-vote

National Popular Vote
data and media report archive
https://www.nationalpopularvote.com/

[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 05-28-2018).]